PBF81

LOL ... Thanks!!

How's Torrence doing? Anyone ...

Agreed. On the flip side, if you are going to put them out there, have them prepared and playing 100%.

I'm not saying they'll be successful, just saying that's what happens. Common sense. A team interested may not be able to get him for free, A, and B, even if a player hits the market doesn't mean that a team is guaranteed to get him. A trade accomplishes that. But touche`, I have no idea why anyone would trade for Sherfield. WRs like that are a dime a dozen in the NFL. I suppose if they put some turd polish on him. We've been through this same exercise every season. We're told how great so many WRs are going to be that come and go here. It's dizzying. LOL You're jumping in on arguments that you don't have the context on. By implication you're supporting that angle. Either way, who cares, no worries, enjoy the game. Let's call it a truce here. I would sincerely appreciate that. I'm always open to learning. Thanks! I'll hold you to that. LOL Also, in the event that Gilliam is cut, no need. You may want to wait just in case. It's more or less moot at that point.

I asked you for the evidence that you had. You threw out the two KC games where he made, and I quote, a "big impact." I demonstrated that he made no impact on any of the scoring plays and on none of the plays that got a vast majority of yards in that first game. None whatsoever. If you think I'm wrong, please feel free to watch those handful of plays on the 20-minute or so highlight reel and correct me. But simply saying you said so in Simon-Says fashion isn't answering the mail on this one. You've chided me for saying things that "aren't true," and in at least one instance, again, I admitted to playing fast and loose and agreed. You can either provide the evidence, whenever you have time, or do the same, I'd appreciate it either way. I'm perfectly open to seeing where Gilliam contributed and made a "big impact," your words, and on more than a handful of plays as you suggest. But what I won't do is be told I don't know what I'm talking about by someone that provides absolutely no evidence to the contrary in this case. You've been pretty good at providing information to back yourself up, not so in this case. As you were. This shouldn't be a popularity contest, it's a discussion, you may very well be right, but if you're going to call me out for being wrong, it'd be nice to get some evidence besides you say so. Gilliam may be the best FB in the history of the game that doesn't catch or run. But "big impact" entails doing something on the plays that provide the scoring and scoring drives. Enjoy your beers & pubfare!! Go Bills!!!

It's also apples-to-oranges. Either way, suppose I acquiesce to that, let's get back to my original point. He adds nothing to our offense being good. I'll start by submitting those three carries that you're splitting hairs over as evidence on top of the non-existent "you've gotta watch the games" evidence that we're being told to trust. Don't trust any of the professional review sites though that specialize in that, no, just random opinions here instead. LOL Honestly, I have no idea why anyone thinks that Gilliam is anything but JAG at FB. Am I entitled to hold that viewpoint? Just checking.

I didn't say it did. Feel free to take that up with anyone that did. Not sure why you're putting those words in my mouth. Someone brought up Gilliam and there was a side conversation. I've been shagging overlapping non-related posts on crossover from my discussion, largely with Gunner. Feel free to look back at ALL of my posts on the topic and it'll clear MOs up for you. My point on Gilliam is that IMO, again, IMO, they can easily get his contributions from others on the roster in different positions and do away with the FB altogether. He faces zero competition if we're going to retain a FB. At the same time, I have to think that if we are going to keep one, at $2M he's expendable, worse than expendable. He'd either come back at something more akin to vet minimum or there will be a better receiving FB out there, but even that I'm not sure I see a role for on this team as we throw to our RBs less than almost every other team. We shall see. Until then we can bicker and argue but it doesn't matter a heap of cow dung.

No, I was not. IMO Sherfield is not what Isabella has to beat out. I do NOT view it as a direct competition. I didn't elaborate because I specifically didn't feel like dealing with a barrage of out-of-context statements. I view it as more of a big picture thing. And who knows, maybe they stock 7 WRs and both make it, I have no idea. I'm not in charge.

5 targets 3 catches in 2021. 10 targets 5 catches in 2022. You can do the math. Throw in 2020, his rookie season, 7 targets 5 catches total in two years, still less than last year with Dorsey combined. If you want to toss in his 3 carries for 3 yards in 2021 be my guest, but it merely reinforces my point in this discussion. All the runs were in blowouts, 35-0 and 40-0. No gain on 3rd-and-1. 2 Yards on 2nd-and-10. 1 Yard on 3rd-and-2

The only thing I've gotten is that you appear to be so eager to win an argument that you've thrown all reason and common sense to the for winds. LOL

If you want to have a civil discussion then please stop putting words in mouth. I never said that, in fact I distinctly recall not specifying. I know what I think and that's not it thank you. Again, we were talking about Gilliam. 🙄

Likely, yes, I've never suggested otherwise, UNLESS, and if and only if, Isabella gets cut. Can we wait and see, or do we already have to decide what the coaches are going to do? Just checking. LOL

Friendly wager only on this one. If Isabella makes the team, Sherfield will not. Also, if I did that it would be a charity wager, to the winner's choice of charity. I don't like to wager on things that are subjective. We have no idea what's going through the coaches' minds, I don't presume to know either. I'm simply looking at historical performance, or in this case, lack thereof, and connecting the dots. And no problem to jumping in, I appreciate your adding that context, otherwise, as you imply, things get complicated and unmanageable. in a thread very quickly. Isabella may not even make the team, and it's moot. 3 Combined, 2 solo tackles on STs, 8 total, 5 solo in three seasons, is a "high level ST play" now? Either my standars are way too high or I'm missing something. We don't need TE blocking depth, and I even disagree there. Gunner pointed out as one of Gilliams stronger games the two regular season KC games, I just proved that he contributed nothing significant in the 2021 KC game on plays where we scored or otherwise responsible for the vast majority of our yards. We'll see, no sense in arguring this anymore. It'll be what it'll be. We have no control over any of it, it's just discussion. We were talking about Gilliam, not Sherfield. Stay focused.

Let's see how things line up tonight. I could not disagree with you more on game 1 of preseason. It's funny, because every year there are surprise cuts around the league. I don't see Shorter or Khalil going anywhere. As stated, if they do, then Beane needs further scrutiny. Either way, if Shorter and Khalil do stay, and if, a big if, Isabella makes the 53, my money says that Sherfield is out. IMO they're trying to pump up his value in camp and practice for a trade. Sure, I could be 100% wrong. Time will tell. It's purely opinion.

Through the years? Two years? Well, OK. OK, so you went and found two games in which he had his 1st and 4th highest snap counts. Taking your advice, I reviewed 20 minute highlight video. 2021: On Allen's first designed run Sing blocked for him, Gilliam not on the field. Second play, in motion, dropped into the flat, didn't even directly draw a defender. Inconsequential on that play. Third play, Allen run, Gilliam not on the field. Fourth play, designed trick play, Allen run for a TD, Gilliam not on the field. Fifth play, Gilliam entirely against the grain, whiffing on the block inconsequentially. Next relevant play, Moss with about a 10-yard run, Gilliam not on the field. Next three plays big pass plays, last one for a TD. Gilliam not on the field. Huge pass play to Diggs deep, Gilliam not on the field. Designed screen to Moss for 15, Gilliam not on the field. Next play, deep to Knox for a 53 TD, Gilliam not on the field. Allen on what appears to be a designed run for 5, Gilliam not on the field. Gilliam lined up as TE, blocks, sheds, wide open in the flat, Allen to Knox deep for 41. Allen 11-yard pass to Sanders, Gilliam not on the field. Allen to Beasley for 5, Gilliam not on the field. Allen scrambles for 4 and a 1st, Gilliam not on the field. Screen to Moss for 16, Gilliam not on the field. Allen to Davis for 16 and another 1st, Gilliam not on the field. Designed UTM run by Allen for 12, Gilliam not on the field. Tight formation, Allen to Sanders for an 8-yard TD, Gilliam not on the field. I suspect that a third of Gilliam's snaps were on our last drive clearly just trying to kill the clock and insurmountably up at that point. Either way, on the entire highlight video Gilliam was on the field for only three plays, inconsequential on every single one, as in could have been any JAG that did what he did. He clearly wasn't getting any particular respect from Reid's D. I'm not sure it's worthe reviewing the 2022 game, but maybe I will. Either way, if he was somehow instrumental it wasn't clear. Either way, he certainly didn't have much of an impact much less a "big impact" as you stated. You did say in both games, so I'm not sure there's any sense in my reviewing the other one at this point. You've called me out for posting more opinionated stuff than facts, and I've even acquiesced, such as when I was playing a little fast and loose with history going back to 2017-2020 re: our analysis of the LBs. I'm going to suggest the same here, cordially of course. On plays where the vast majority of our yards and all scores came from, Gilliam had exactly zero impact much less any "big impact." My friendly wager offer was regarding Gilliam not making the 53 at his current $2M contract value. We're on for that. My take on Sherfield is clearly linked to if Isabella makes the 53. If he does, then yes, friendly wager that Sherfield is the one he beats out. I'm not sure that we have another WR on the team that would take Sherfield's place after Isabella though. If Isabella is cut, I fully expect Shefield to be on the 53.

He's a rookie. What the ... LOL So in your world the quality of a QB's passing game has little to do with how well WRs perform. Alright, noted. I would quickly add that the WRs that have worked with Brady and other much better QBs would likely differ from you on that. Either way, my point is simply that if Isabella's kept around, and I have no idea whether he will be or not, IMO the one to get cut would be Sherfield. What people seem to be overlooking in the matter is that teams often talk up certain players in camp, and I'm sure give them good reps to shine, in hopes of trading them. Who knows whether Sherfield is one of them or not. We do not at this point in time. We may never know.

I can't speak to the PS, I only care about the 53. And I would argue, that if he's truly as good as his proponents here say he is, then he won't last long on our PS squad either. I'm suggesting that with the drafting of Kincaid & Torrence, the team is changing its offensive approach slightly, and that it won't nearly include the FB/Gilliam as much, particularly since he doesn't catch, and that therefore he's expendable, perhaps with a FB that does catch more but may not be quite as good a blocker. Again, so far the only argument that I can see in favor of his use here is that he's in on the "big body" plays, but it was pointed out that he wasn't in on any of our short TD runs. Next up was that he's in on the short-yardage plays otherwise. Maybe, but until we look at those plays in action I'm far from convinced. We had a mere 34 plays on 3rd-and-short (1-3 yards) all season. Of those, 27 converted. We have no idea how many Gilliam was involved in and those were supposed to be his specialty. At least nothing has been posted. I'm simply not seeing the need this season on what appears to be more of a spread offense in the making. I could be way off on that, as I'm incredibly optimistic and bullish on the Offense this season, more so than anyone else that I can see. Either way, I'm not seeing a significant role for a blocking FB on this team, particularly with the signing of Harris, who granted, isn't Gilliam in blocking, but who can block well nonethelss.

So you're claiming that Richardson was among the better QBs in the SEC last season and that UF's passing game was robust if not what, among the best in the SEC then? Is that what I'm understanding in your reply to what I said. Which was ... In short, NPI, you seem to think that given his circumstances at UF, Shorter's got a lower ceiling than his stats, and to at least some extent his draft capital, suggest? Do you think that maybe "he didn't do a ton" at UF because he had a QB that was erratic, had poor mechanics and decision-making, and ranked near the bottom of the SEC for passers? Or don't you think that had anything to do with it? Shorter was a freshman and sophomore at PSU, and despite that he still was the third leading WR on their team as a soph, and a team that's almost always heavy on TE use, as it was then as well. Just sayin'. Trying to understand your point here.

I just pointed out that Daboll used him less than Dorsey did. 3 carries in two seasons? For a 3 yards? Zero targets or catches? As pointed out, Gilliam wasn't in on a single rushing TD play last season. So your argument is that he was in on a bunch of them under Daboll? I'll pose the same question to you that I posed to Gunner, where's the actual evidence that he's more than JAG? Daboll's going to cut another spot and install a FB when he didn't bother to even try one out this season and didn't use one last year? I suppose it's possible, but again, why is everyone so high on Gilliam? He clearly contributes little to scoring, is only in on every sixth offensive play. He ranked 17th in snaps taken offensively. Immediately behind him were Hart and Crowder, the latter of which saw only a handful of games. IDK, maybe you're right, if we even cut him, he'll end up on the Giants. I'm simply questioning the logic other than Daboll picking up every offensive player that we might release that played under him here.

BTW, I'm still waiting for the evidence that you used to garner all of that. Not to be snarky at all, I'm truly interested in seeing it. Knowing you, there's gotta be something besides "the coaches said" that's behind this. Please share. I'd love to take the time to see it, truly.

I'm sure it was, but you said he used him more, which is false. He used him less. So whether or not Daboll is going to create a new FB roster spot for him over there remains to be seen. We're not even sure he'll be cut. IMO there's a reasonable chance. Gunner sees it differently. Time will tell. I'm sure that whatever the team does this season, it's going to be with an emphasis on improving Allen's passing game, reducing his running the ball, etc. The drafting of Kincaid and Torrence spells that out, at least as I see it.

Does it? On one hand we have no idea who the coaches are going to cut, and they obviously keep their cards close to their vests. On the other, we already know in advance, that a WR that's done all but nothing in five seasons, averaging much fewer than 200s yards and 1 TD per season, despite having a relatively negligible cap hit, has zero chance of being cut should Isabella be kept on? The premise floated is that Khalil and Shorter cannot backup Diggs/Davis. IMO that's absurd. And Khalil as a rookie posted what Sherfield's averaged in five seasons. And Khalil has posted more catches and yards as a rookie in the playoffs than Sherfield has in five seasons, which is none, he has no postseason catches. I also do not see them cutting their 5th-round pick at WR this year either. If they do then questions need to start being asked about picks like that. Shorter, as I pointed out, was on an SEC team which ranked near the bottom in passing, had one of the worst passing offenses, and one of the least efficient and worst QBs in the conference. His ceiling is higher than his draft status.

Used him in what capacity? He was here for two seasons, of his three in the NFL, under Daboll, and he got fewer targets and catches in both seasons combined than he did last season, under Dorsey. He also got greater snap counts last season, both on O and STs, than he did in either season under Daboll. Again, in what capacity then?

Haven't you done that to support your analysis on this? I'd love to look at the data/stats on it. I simply don't know where to get them without hours worth of film study, and it's not worth that kinda time. I'd be quite interested to look at what you have. Shorter can back up Diggs and Davis. So can Khalil. Their strengths align with that according to both their draft profiles as well as Khalil's play here last season. We shall see. As for me, I'm perplexed as to why there's so much hope for a player that's produced pedestrian numbers at best, and almost exclusively in situations where competition for his roster spot in five seasons has been as minimal as it will ever be. Don't be surprised if he is cut. "Not a chance" tho, I'd be careful with that one.

Doesn't matter in this case. It's not part of the reason why I said that. And BTW, "not a chance?" Really? Low cap hit, no demonstrable contributions in four seasons. I disagree.